An Electoral College plan

Trapped inside. Caught up watching torrents of reports, swirls of data charts, floods of facts and gusts of high wind endlessly battering my senses. Till the screen went black. Hurricane Sandy? No. The presidential campaign in the swing states, those providing Electoral College votes needed for victory.

I survived this scenario in one of them, Colorado, whilst visiting there in late September.

I had never experienced something like this before: Four or five consecutive opposing commercials for Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama. In rapid succession, and throughout the day (and evening, I was told), each side contradicted the other in a head-spinning cyclone of blabber.

Wasn't Toyota having a sale-athon? No sale of the year at Macy's? Was the election the only thing up for sale? To end the deluge, I would simply shut off the TV.

The ads went on all during my time in Colorado. Luckily, I spent most of my time outdoors. But I couldn't help wondering if we were electing the president of Colorado or Florida or some other swing state. Oddsmakers and pundits say we will elect the president of Ohio, “the swingingest state with most” electoral votes.

This would be partial democracy in a republic missing some of its parts.

It has been estimated that $3.3 billion will have been spent on TV ads for this presidential election. If the elections of 2004 and 2008 are any indicator, about 98 percent of this money will be spent in about 15 states.

Colorado was among the least predictable races, hence the outflow of money and ads right to the last minutes. In my state, New Jersey, there was hardly any media campaigning at all. Gov. Chris Christie was more likely to campaign for Mr. Romney in swing states than in New Jersey, whose electoral votes were safe for Obama.

Hurricanes come and go, tides ebb and flow, but the Electoral College endures, a bit more battered after each election. In recent decades, there have been many calls for reform or elimination of this body. The outcry was strongest when one candidate won the popular vote, but not the electoral vote (Bush vs. Gore).

The Electoral College, established in the 18th century, is no longer viable in this 21st-century pluralistic democracy. The college is based on a winner-takes-all formula. In part, the college was created to preserve state-based power in a federal republic. However, the American electorate has grown less tolerant of the all-or-nothing-at-all allocation of electoral votes by state. The people want more proportionality in the process.

For example, many voters are effectively disenfranchised in “safe” states. Why, for example, should a Republican get all excited about presidential elections in New York, a forever-Democratic state? What motivates a Democrat in heavily Republican Oklahoma?

In future elections, as many states become more fixed in their red or blue status, why should the lesser party adherents bother to vote at all, in any election, perhaps dealing a fatal blow to a system which already has a terrible voter turnout record?

True, our democracy has withstood many forceful storms in the past. But just as we prepared for Sandy in a different way and in a different world than we might have done for hurricanes 50 years ago, we must adjust our electoral system. Otherwise, we will just be electing a swing-state president every cycle.

Neither of the two plans of electoral reform currently on the menu addresses the fundamental issue of democratic participation in a state-based federal republic.

One is the National Popular Vote plan. Under this scheme, a group of states whose total number of electoral votes equals 270 agree to give all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. Sounds good, except that a whole passel of states could be left out of the electoral process entirely. The system can be jiggered to favor one party which may dominate the requisite subset of states.

In Pennsylvania, there is a movement afoot to split the state's electoral votes based on winning majorities in congressional districts. Again, sounds good in terms of addressing the popular democracy concerns, but who would have faith in a system in which the areas of these districts in Pennsylvania — and everywhere else — are drawn at the whim of politicians in power?

There is a simpler solution, which balances demands of political democracy with the importance of states in the federal republic. It will also eliminate the swing-state presidency possibility.

Here is what we should consider: Each state should allocate electoral votes on a proportional basis equal to the share of the popular vote each candidate receives in that state. Individual voters in every state are empowered and the rights of states are preserved. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win. As a bonus, it is possible to set a threshold at which third-party candidates might receive electoral votes.

Under this proposal, there is no inherent advantage to either political party, any subset of states, and no diminution of the importance of every individual vote. Sometimes the simplest solutions can work best. This one might even be storm-proof.

Silvio Laccetti is a resident of Bergen County, N.J., and is retired from teaching social sciences at Stevens Tech. Reach him at slaccett@stevens.edu.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.